Observational studyBMC surgery2026
Endoscopic transcervical mediastinal drainage for treating descending necrotizing mediastinitis.
Observational study in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDescending necrotizing mediastinitis (DNM) is a severe complication of deep neck infection when the mediastinum is involved. Currently, the optimal surgical treatment for DNM, especially for Endo IIA DNM, has not been defined. We aimed to describe a standardized ETMD procedure emphasizing safe catheter placement into the main mediastinal abscess cavities and to evaluate its association outcomes compared with non-ETMD approaches in patients with DNM.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with descending necrotizing mediastinitis (DNM) secondary to deep neck infection between 2008 and 2024. Patients who received incomplete treatment or were unable to undergo surgery were excluded. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were collected. Surgical management was classified as endoscopic transcervical mediastinal drainage (ETMD) or non-ETMD. The primary outcome was the requirement for secondary drainage. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, drainage duration, and major complications. Statistical analyses were performed using t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable models where appropriate. Multivariable regression and supplementary inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses were performed to adjust for potential confounding.
resultsAmong 95 patients enrolled, 49 received ETMD. The secondary drainage rate was significantly lower in patients who received ETMD (10.2% vs. 43.5%; risk difference, -33.3%; 95% CI, -49.9% to -16.6%; P < 0.001). After IPTW adjustment, ETMD remained associated with a lower risk of secondary drainage (OR = 0.184; 95% CI, 0.050-0.677; P = 0.013). In the exploratory Endo IIA subgroup analysis, ETMD reduced secondary drainage rate and shortened selected perioperative recovery measures.
conclusionIn this multicentre retrospective cohort, ETMD reduced the requirement for secondary drainage in patients with DNM, particularly in the exploratory Endo IIA subgroup analysis. These findings suggest that ETMD may be a potential minimally invasive approach for selected patients, but further prospective studies are needed to validate its role. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.